|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Chilcot report
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
One has to marvel at the honesty of Bush/Blair in declaring no chemical shit was found. I mean how easy would have been, midst the fog of war, to plant a stash of drums in the sand and shout--- Hey, lookity what we got here !
The extent of the insurgency, which continues to the present day, is the overwhelming factor that has made March 03 the historical and monumental cock up it will always be remembered for.
Still, for anyone seeking a silver lining, the West has nevertheless succeeded in puppet governing S. Iraq and drinking it's crude. Some conscious-less satisfaction to be drawn there?
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I've watched Blair for part of his speech, and saw someone rather different from usual. Not as stricken as when David Kelly's death was reported to him, but not as assured as he has been in the past. Not sure what to make of that, though.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
John Simpson on BBC News was interesting, arguing that the invasion and its sequelae, had a corrosive effect on politics in the UK, increasing cynicism and dislike towards politicians. He even mentioned Brexit as one of the consequences, impossible to prove, of course.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Those of you who like reading can access the Chilcot report here.
Currently I'm wading my way through the Executive Summary.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I've watched Blair for part of his speech, and saw someone rather different from usual. Not as stricken as when David Kelly's death was reported to him, but not as assured as he has been in the past. Not sure what to make of that, though.
I'm inclined to remember that he was always adept at tuning the emotion he displayed to fit the moment. I'm not convinced we've ever seen a genuine emotion from Blair on-camera unless it happened to coincide with what he thought was politically expedient at the time. Blair, if nothing else, was a master manipulator.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There was a squaddie at the time, interviewed on the Beeb, tooled up with an HMG, in a sandbagged checkpoint, never taking his slitty eyes off the road, who said, "We came out here and kicked something up the arse and it turned round and bit us.".
It hasn't let go yet.
So, how should we have done that 'better' with hindsight? That's all Blair seems to acknowledge. Even if he knew the intel was crap, which I accept that he didn't (I didn't accept that at the time and didn't care that there were NO WMDs), how would he have brought down Saddam, the 'real prize' and returned Iraq to its neo-Babylonian if not Edenic golden age?
Little things like treat the Iraqi army and establishment as a resource, i.e. with respect?
The one good thing that came out of this two trillion dollar, at least 155,000 dead nightmare that goes on and on in Ankara and Raqqa and Paris and Brussels and Baghdad, is Chris Rock's joke "You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, ... France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war ...".
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
One has to marvel at the honesty of Bush/Blair in declaring no chemical shit was found. I mean how easy would have been, midst the fog of war, to plant a stash of drums in the sand and shout--- Hey, lookity what we got here !
I think pretty difficult. Unless you're prepared to kill the people who planted the stash and to control the identification of the chemicals or other weapons. Forensic analysis would show the source.
So no, don't marvel at their honesty when they had no choice. Marvel instead at the moral and ethical failure that led them to justify this attack. Which we know was a long term plan. The information about weapons were merely a pretext for a plan they had wanted to implement.
I don't buy that Blair was seduced by Bush, though a tryst between the two, including pillow talk would make for a rather bizarre play, opera or musical
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
I think it was fairly obvious Bush was going into Iraq on his own if needs be. Blair probably saw himself as a travelling companion and moderator.
Britain only suffered a very small number of casualties compared to the US. Even if we had avoided involvement there is no saying we would have been spared the consequential terror attacks anymore than France who kept out.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
France has treated Muslims like shit in its own way for quite some time. A better comparison would be Germany that has been broadly welcoming of its Muslim immigrant population.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I've watched Blair for part of his speech, and saw someone rather different from usual. Not as stricken as when David Kelly's death was reported to him, but not as assured as he has been in the past. Not sure what to make of that, though.
I'm inclined to remember that he was always adept at tuning the emotion he displayed to fit the moment. I'm not convinced we've ever seen a genuine emotion from Blair on-camera unless it happened to coincide with what he thought was politically expedient at the time. Blair, if nothing else, was a master manipulator.
Two things. Firstly, if you are a politician you can always console yourself that your critics are being unfair. If, on the other hand, an eminent person with no axe to grind cooly assess the pros and cons of one of your more questionable decisions and solemnly concludes that you screwed the pooch and this is all over the media it's going to feel like a punch in the guts. It's like the episode of Blackadder when Edmund decides to do in the King's annoying Scottish friend in the play 'Death of a Scotsman'. "Don't worry, there won't be much acting involved.
Secondly, this is the Revenge Of Gordon. It was Brown who set up the enquiry, Brown who decided the Terms of Reference and Brown who appointed Sir John Chilcot. There's an episode of 'Yes Prime Minister' when Jim Hacker wants someone responsible for a leak to go to prison. "How will you manage that' asks Sir Humphrey.
"Little drinky with the judge?" suggests Hacker.
"Impossible!" cries Sir Humphrey "The independence of the judiciary is a key part of the constitution".
Hacker is unimpressed by this display of moral rectitude. "How then?"
Sir Humphrey smiles: "You get the Lord Chancellor to appoint a judge with extremely firm views on breaches of the Official Secrets Act".
This is how the establishment works. If you want to bring down Blair's legacy, you don't get Damian McBride to tell journalists horrible things about Blair. You set up an enquiry, ensure that the terms of reference are sufficiently wide ranging and put in charge someone of complete moral rectitude who disapproves of wishful thinking and blithering incompetence. It's been a long wait but in the Tony/ Gordon wars it is Gordon who is, tonight, raising a cheerful glass and cackling to himself, whilst Tony pours himself another stiff measure and tells Cherie for the 273rd time that this is all Bloody Gordon's fault. That's got to sting.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The Project for a New American Century - call for regime change in Iraq, called for the regime change in the 1990s. Which makes it obvious that they just wanted a pretext to invade the country. The weapons of mass destruction provided one. The Sept 11 attacks provided the foundational pretext: that the west was under siege and threat.
I used to have a copy of one of their documents, which isn't available easily (or maybe at all) in the internet anymore. It stated (from my memory, incredulous when I read it, and poignant even now, more than 15 years after I first read it) that without a galvanizing incident like the 1941 Pearl Harbour attack, it would be difficult to gain public support for their plans to invade Iraq. Written before the 2001 attacks!
The 2001 Sept 11 attack was, I suppose, the Lord placing Saddam into their hands. They just had to create the first lie: that Al Qaeda was involved in Iraq (which it wasn't, but they promoted this) and then add the second one. about the weapons.
[ 06. July 2016, 21:17: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I don't buy that Blair was seduced by Bush, though a tryst between the two, including pillow talk would make for a rather bizarre play, opera or musical
I am forced to dig up this gem from around the time of the invasion:
https://youtu.be/UtEH6wZXPA4
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
[Personally, I sign up to the "horrendous clusterfuck, but not actually a war crime" view of these matters, partly because Saddam was a genuine case for the Hague, if ever there was one, and a serial disturber of the international peace and partly, because if the intelligence that the PM should have been more sceptical about had been correct then it would have constituted, AIUI, a genuine casus belli.
Possibly, but as I recall the criteria of jus ad bellum also include that there should be a reasonable possibility of success, and it was fairly obvious at the time not just that the probability that Hussein would be succeeded by a peaceful pluralist democracy were somewhat less than 50%, but also that Mr Blair had no idea how he was going to increase those odds.
If we are being Catholic about this, I believe there is traditionally a distinction between vincible and invincible ignorance, and while I accept that it is quite possible to be invincibly ignorant about where MI6 get their information from, the likely difficulties of reconstructing Iraq after deposing Hussein were fairly widely reported beforehand.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
[Personally, I sign up to the "horrendous clusterfuck, but not actually a war crime" view of these matters, partly because Saddam was a genuine case for the Hague, if ever there was one, and a serial disturber of the international peace and partly, because if the intelligence that the PM should have been more sceptical about had been correct then it would have constituted, AIUI, a genuine casus belli.
Possibly, but as I recall the criteria of jus ad bellum also include that there should be a reasonable possibility of success, and it was fairly obvious at the time not just that the probability that Hussein would be succeeded by a peaceful pluralist democracy were somewhat less than 50%, but also that Mr Blair had no idea how he was going to increase those odds.
If we are being Catholic about this, I believe there is traditionally a distinction between vincible and invincible ignorance, and while I accept that it is quite possible to be invincibly ignorant about where MI6 get their information from, the likely difficulties of reconstructing Iraq after deposing Hussein were fairly widely reported beforehand.
I don't disagree with you. But I think the original criteria for a war crime, to which I was responding, was "waging aggressive war". Which precedent is derived from the Nuremberg Trials and the indictment of the German political leadership for the outbreak of World War II. I'm not convinced that the Fuhrer invaded Poland because of the President of Poland's terrible human rights record, penchant for invading other countries, and alleged possession of WMD and that things only went wrong for the Germans because they underestimated the possibility of establishing liberal democracy in the country. I think that the entirely salient points you raise come under the category of "massive clusterfuck" rather than "war crime". It doesn't follow from this that "massive clusterfuck" is short hand for "Blair vindicated" or "Blair Triumphant, Always Was And Always Wiil Be". More a case of Blair: not quite as bad as Assad, Hussein, Putin or, indeed, Hitler. If I were an ex-PM I wouldn't really want that as a case for the defence, but as cases for the defence go it's not all bad.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Blair has apologized FULLY and taken FULL responsibility for doing NOTHING wrong.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Blair has apologized FULLY and taken FULL responsibility for doing NOTHING wrong.
You know Martin, I think you have nailed it. Off to the quotes thread with you.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The Project for a New American Century - call for regime change in Iraq, called for the regime change in the 1990s. Which makes it obvious that they just wanted a pretext to invade the country. The weapons of mass destruction provided one. The Sept 11 attacks provided the foundational pretext: that the west was under siege and threat.
I used to have a copy of one of their documents, which isn't available easily (or maybe at all) in the internet anymore. It stated (from my memory, incredulous when I read it, and poignant even now, more than 15 years after I first read it) that without a galvanizing incident like the 1941 Pearl Harbour attack, it would be difficult to gain public support for their plans to invade Iraq. Written before the 2001 attacks!
I suspect you're conflating PNAC's animus against Iraq with a memorable quote from their 2000 report, Rebuilding America's Defenses: quote:
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.
But the transformation under discussion wasn't an invasion of Iraq; it was the so-called "Transformation of the US Army" AKA the "Revolution in Military Affairs".
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Blair has apologized FULLY and taken FULL responsibility for doing NOTHING wrong.
It's a very memorable one-liner but I think Callan Identified pretty accurately the real limits to his apologies. He has apologised pretty generally for the massive cluster-fuck elements identified in the report but not for anything which would put him in the war-crimes zone or indeed the zone of civil action for negligence. That's different to "doing nothing wrong". And sure, you might argue that there is defensive self-serving going on but I'm sure he is well aware of the potential legal risks.
Some of the families of the war dead have asked their lawyers to go over Chilcot to see what grounds there might be for action, both civil and criminal I think. That aspect of the whole mess isn't going to be over for some time. Like anyone else, Tony Blair has the right to make the best defensive case he can make for his actions. Not all mistakes involve the risks of legal culpability. You can bet he has both advised himself on that and taken independent professional legal advice.
That being said, I admire the one-liner, Martin. It's joined "Theresa May but Andrea Can" in the most memorable category.
[ 07. July 2016, 06:03: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
PS. I heard one of the family members being interviewed on TV this morning. She said their lawyers were going through Chilcot to see if a basis existed "to take Tony Blair to the Hague".
I'm no expert on International Law. What constitutes "standing" before the Court of the Hague? Can individuals or a group of residents in (say) country A actually take an individual from country A directly to the Hague? I would have thought not. Any allegation of crime would be a matter for the law of country A first, I would have thought, then maybe subject to appeal to external bodies.
Is there an international lawyer on the Ship?
[ 07. July 2016, 08:32: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
On the involvement or not of other countries: FWIW the French may be feeling quite gloaty about the Iraq war, but don’t forget that they stayed out of it for some fairly dishonourable reasons.
Essentially, Saddam was Jacques Chirac’s mate and that’s why he felt disinclined to drop bombs on him. Furthermore, given the extensive links between France and the Arab world, Chirac decided he had less to lose by pissing off the Americans than by pissing off the Arabs. I’m not saying the French weren’t much better off out of it, but they don’t have all that much moral high ground if you ask me.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
To put that dishonourable reason in context, Saddam was everyone in the West's best mate against Iran, including periods when he was using chemical weapons in the war against Iran, on Marsh Arabs and on the Kurds. He definitely had weapons of mass destruction then and used them but we were apparently fine with that. Then a few years later it was a reason to go to war.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
A fundamental problem has been the pervasive influence of the Myth of Redemptive Violence, which says, in essence, if you kill the bad guys then everything will be all right. It's usually dressed in more fancy clothes than that, but that's the essence of it. It's hugely pervasive in (at least western) popular culture and has been for a long time.
Once the power of the myth is in force, then people will more readily believe that violent action can achieve a good end, and will be more inclined to look for, and believe that there are grounds for violent action. The scene is set for confirmation bias, corner cutting, and unbalanced weighing of evidence because at some level the belief that violent action will redeem is already in operation.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I don't even think it was as nuanced as all that (redemptive violence). After 9/11 they just wanted to punch someone in the face. They had an anger that needed venting and punched the weakest player in the room of the Middle East and crossed their fingers that the nose they hit would bleed oil for them for a while.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I find it all more and more disturbing. An utterly humourless black comedy. This IS one 1% act in the play of a thousand years: The West vs. Islam.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I find it all more and more disturbing. An utterly humourless black comedy. This IS one 1% act in the play of a thousand years: The West vs. Islam.
It's not West v Islam now and with the exception of the Crusades and the League of Nations Protectorates it rarely has been. It is usually one faction in the Middle East against another, sometimes fuelled by religious fervour but sometimes not and the West, for reasons usually connected to the Black Gold and the arms trade cannot resist getting involved.
No matter who the participants are however, most of the victimes are people living in that area, who are for the most part Muslim.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
And there is no homogeneous 'West'. Many people protested at the war, and still do, and it has helped to drive a wedge into the Labour party, as many members are still horrified at what Blair did, supported by others.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Apropos Tony Blair he now states that the world is better for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Should we therefore give him thanks for ISIS, civil war in Syria, Yemen and Libya, bombings and attacks all over the world, including Paris and London, as well as the death of about 180 British servicemen and women?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Apropos Tony Blair he now states that the world is better for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Should we therefore give him thanks for ISIS, civil war in Syria, Yemen and Libya, bombings and attacks all over the world, including Paris and London, as well as the death of about 180 British servicemen and women?
Cue the obvious joke about rivers in Egypt.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wesley J
Silly Shipmate
# 6075
|
Posted
Not so obvious to everyone, perhaps? Care to explain, please? Thank you.
--------------------
Be it as it may: Wesley J will stay. --- Euthanasia, that sounds good. An alpine neutral neighbourhood. Then back to Britain, all dressed in wood. Things were gonna get worse. (John Cooper Clarke)
Posts: 7354 | From: The Isles of Silly | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Denial.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I don't buy that Blair was seduced by Bush, though a tryst between the two, including pillow talk would make for a rather bizarre play, opera or musical
I am forced to dig up this gem from around the time of the invasion:
https://youtu.be/UtEH6wZXPA4
Finally got to watch this. It's beyond my wildest dreams and most disturbing nightmares. So thankyou. I don't know whether I'm supposed to laugh, cry, explode a bomb or masturbate after that. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Saddam was everyone in the West's best mate against Iran, including periods when he was using chemical weapons in the war against Iran, on Marsh Arabs and on the Kurds. He definitely had weapons of mass destruction then and used them but we were apparently fine with that. Then a few years later it was a reason to go to war.
Indeed. That weird and not very wonderful scenario where our leaders can bend and manipulate morality. A large proportion of we the masses may sign up to warped morality for a while, then the backlash comes.
On this occasion it comes to rest on TB. He has been cast as the Bomber Harris in all this, while Bush....? Err, well...not exactly Churchill. He was however pictured on our news last night helping a disabled Veteran get about. I have a sneaky feeling that Uncle Sam had been on the lookout for a can-carrying jack-ass over Iraq. That wish appears to have been granted courtesy of the Chilcot Inquiry.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I don't buy that Blair was seduced by Bush, though a tryst between the two, including pillow talk would make for a rather bizarre play, opera or musical
I am forced to dig up this gem from around the time of the invasion:
https://youtu.be/UtEH6wZXPA4
Finally got to watch this. It's beyond my wildest dreams and most disturbing nightmares. So thankyou. I don't know whether I'm supposed to laugh, cry, explode a bomb or masturbate after that.
I suggest not trying to do all four at once.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
marsupial.
Shipmate
# 12458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I am influenced by Canadian media reports today which - not gloatingly, but I was led to consider gloating by the tone - remind us that Canada refused to participate in the attack on Iraq. I was also remembering the mocking and disparaging of France "freedom fries" when they also refused to participate. Obviously some countries did not have the same false belief. Why?
Politics, for one thing. Chretien knew that Bush was unpopular and the war was unpopular in Canada. I have no idea what evidence he had in front of him at the time, but it's much easier to be skeptical about evidence supporting something you don't want to do in the first place.
Posts: 653 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Saddam was everyone in the West's best mate against Iran, including periods when he was using chemical weapons in the war against Iran, on Marsh Arabs and on the Kurds. He definitely had weapons of mass destruction then and used them but we were apparently fine with that. Then a few years later it was a reason to go to war.
Indeed. That weird and not very wonderful scenario where our leaders can bend and manipulate morality. A large proportion of we the masses may sign up to warped morality for a while, then the backlash comes.
On this occasion it comes to rest on TB. He has been cast as the Bomber Harris in all this, while Bush....? Err, well...not exactly Churchill. He was however pictured on our news last night helping a disabled Veteran get about. I have a sneaky feeling that Uncle Sam had been on the lookout for a can-carrying jack-ass over Iraq. That wish appears to have been granted courtesy of the Chilcot Inquiry.
I'd forgotten the parallels with "Bomber" Harris. He served in Iraq in the 1920's and one example of his methods was "In Mesopotamia he commanded a Vickers Vernon squadron. "We cut a hole in the nose and rigged up our own bomb racks and I turned those machines into the heaviest and best bombers in the command". Harris also contributed at this time to the development of bombing using delay-action bombs, which were then applied to keep down uprisings of the Mesopotamian people fighting against British occupation. With regard to this period, Harris is recorded as having remarked "the only thing the Arab understands is the heavy hand." (thanks Wikipedia).
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I find it all more and more disturbing. An utterly humourless black comedy. This IS one 1% act in the play of a thousand years: The West vs. Islam.
It's not West v Islam now and with the exception of the Crusades and the League of Nations Protectorates it rarely has been. It is usually one faction in the Middle East against another, sometimes fuelled by religious fervour but sometimes not and the West, for reasons usually connected to the Black Gold and the arms trade cannot resist getting involved.
No matter who the participants are however, most of the victim[e]s are people living in that area, who are for the most part Muslim.
I'm sorry but my perception is that this is The West (imperialist materialism, the North) vs. Islam (imperialist religion, the South) and yeah, most of the victims of the West (consumption, exploitation, military intervention, the arms trade, political interference, environmental collapse) are Muslim and will be. We have different definitions of 'exception' and 'rarely'.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
He definitely had weapons of mass destruction then and used them but we were apparently fine with that. Then a few years later it was a reason to go to war.
Though in the context of 2003, the WMD being talked about were nuclear weapons, or chemical weapons that were several orders of magnitude more lethal than those used in the Iran-Iraq war.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Related but tangential question:
Any ideas on how/why Blair and Bush got so chummy over this? I understood Blair and Bill Clinton--two peas in a pod, IMHO, but with somewhat different styles. But Dubya and Blair? It seemed so strange that I wondered if Dubya had something on Blair.
Thx.
Just the "Special relationship", which for the most part consists of Washington saying "Jump!" and London replying "How high?".
The last Prime Minister to defy that was probably Harold Wilson over British (non-)involvement in Vietname. ry
Quite.
And after the Brexit shambles the jumping will be even higher than before.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'd forgotten the parallels with "Bomber" Harris. He served in Iraq in the 1920's and one example of his methods was "In Mesopotamia he commanded a Vickers Vernon squadron. "We cut a hole in the nose and rigged up our own bomb racks and I turned those machines into the heaviest and best bombers in the command". Harris also contributed at this time to the development of bombing using delay-action bombs, which were then applied to keep down uprisings of the Mesopotamian people fighting against British occupation. With regard to this period, Harris is recorded as having remarked "the only thing the Arab understands is the heavy hand." (thanks Wikipedia).
He and his colleague visited a hospital to see to human effect of area bombing. Unlike his colleague Harris wasn't sufficiently moved to abandon the technique.
Area bombing was used to win WW2 and destroy the nazi grip on Germany. Yet despite this History has branded Harris as the scapegoat for all that is unpleasant about modern warfare. For different reasons a similar fate has befallen the seemingly hapless Blair. We appear to have forgotten that during the 05 Election campaign the Tories, although accusing TB of lying, admitted that they too would have gone to war with Bush and remove Sadam had they held power in 03.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I don't think any of us forget that the tories are lying, conniving, warmongering bastards too. That' why many of us think of Blair and his acolytes as tories in spirit if not in name.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
PS. I heard one of the family members being interviewed on TV this morning. She said their lawyers were going through Chilcot to see if a basis existed "to take Tony Blair to the Hague".
I'm no expert on International Law. What constitutes "standing" before the Court of the Hague? Can individuals or a group of residents in (say) country A actually take an individual from country A directly to the Hague? I would have thought not. Any allegation of crime would be a matter for the law of country A first, I would have thought, then maybe subject to appeal to external bodies.
Courts at the Hague include the International Court of Justice, which deals with disputes between states and, as far as I know, cannot try criminal cases. The Hague-based court the individuals would want to use would presumably be the International Criminal Court (ICC).
I believe that there are at least two problems with individuals trying to take a case against Mr Blair to the ICC. Firstly, "The Prosecutor conducts preliminary examinations, investigations and is the only one who can bring cases before the Court." (source: ICC web site). Of course, if they can convince the prosecutor to bring a case, then that won't be an obstacle.
Secondly, as I understand it, an illegal invasion of Iraq would come under the crime of aggression. The Rome Statute - the treaty which founded the ICC - gave it the authority to try cases of "genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity", but not the crime of waging an aggressive war.
The Kampala Amendments were added to the Rome Statute in 2010, allowing the ICC to try cases involving the crime of aggression. However, the UK does not appear to be a party to those amendments (source). Even if we were, I am not sure if the 2010 Kampala Amendments would allow the ICC to try a case involving an aggressive war waged in 2003. There is a lot more information here.
[ 08. July 2016, 12:05: Message edited by: Alwyn ]
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
OK, if he can't be hauled in front of the ICC and ICJ could they simply sue him?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
Maybe; Clive Coleman (legal correspondent for the BBC) says that, while some lawyers think that there is little chance of a successful legal action against him, others believe that there are possibilities. Specially, in UK courts, Mr Blair might be prosecuted for misconduct in a public office or sued for misfeasance in public office.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
He definitely had weapons of mass destruction then and used them but we were apparently fine with that. Then a few years later it was a reason to go to war.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Though in the context of 2003, the WMD being talked about were nuclear weapons, or chemical weapons that were several orders of magnitude more lethal than those used in the Iran-Iraq war.
I don't think that was the threshold of legality according to the Chemical Weapons Convention. But yes I suppose the allegation was that he had WMD that might actually hurt us in West, as opposed to asphyxiating Iranians, Kurds and Marsh Arabs.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I have been trying to find a version of Mitch Benn's Now Show song for Bush, with its refrain, "He was mean to my Daddy, he made my Daddy cry, And that's why Saddam Hussain has got to die."
I know that doesn't scan, there must be a missing word. It could do with being resurrected, like that video. My goodness...
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Penny--
Haven't heard of the song; but it jibes with the news I picked up, over the years. Bush had(/has?) major father issues, trying both to best him and get his approval. He chose people from his father's cabinet to be in his. He was out to get Saddam Hussein, for trying to assassinate his dad. When 9/11 happened, he reportedly told his staff to find some way to connect it to SH. A ways down the road, a reporter asked him if he'd asked his dad for advice. Bush paused, looking angry, then coldly said "I appeal to a higher Father".
(Just as backstory: when Bush was little, his dad was away a lot. Bush's sister died, and his mom was alone with the situation, and Bush felt he had to make her laugh to keep her spirits up. I feel sorry for that little boy.)
Tangentially: Many of our presidents had father issues, AFAIK. Out of curiosity, is that true of British prime ministers?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I suspect, off the cuff, that they may have boarding school issues, which have been examined by psychologists over the years.
Mitch Benn is a very clever musician, writes skillful satirical lyrics and can imitate many musical styles. He clearly had picked up on what you explain. The song was very effective, and I know exactly where I was, driving down the A2, when I heard it. Doesn't help retrieve it, though. One link promised it, but did not deliver.
[ 09. July 2016, 08:20: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
OK, if he can't be hauled in front of the ICC and ICJ could they simply sue him?
And if successful would this also pave the way for reparations to Iraq? If it did then the brexit effect on the economy will turn out a pin prick by comparison.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Penny--
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I suspect, off the cuff, that they may have
boarding school issues, which have been examined by psychologists over the years.
Ahhh, thanks. Obama has father issues, too. But IMHO he's much more stable than Bush--maybe because he's worked through those issues, rather than simply acting them out.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
